[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Stone) writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:09:26PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>Maybe, but we should also mention that CLUSTER is a likely faster
>>workaround.
>
> Unless, of course, you don't particularly care about the order of
> the items in your table; you might end up wasting vastly more time
> rewriting tables due to unnecessary clustering than for full vacuums
> on a table that doesn't need it.
Actually, this is irrelevant.
If CLUSTER is faster than VACUUM FULL (and if it isn't, in all cases,
it *frequently* is, and probably will be, nearly always, soon), then
it's a faster workaround.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxfinances.info")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/oses.html
"What if you slept? And what if, in your sleep, you dreamed?
And what if, in your dream, you went to heaven and there
plucked a strange and beautiful flower? And what if, when
you awoke, you had the flower in your hand? Ah, what then?"
--Coleridge
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
